Read the transcript to the Friday show

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York tonight.

We`re waiting the president of the United States, his statement about the political unrest in the country of Ukraine.

Now, the latest reports from the region say armed militants have occupied two airports in the area. Members of the Ukraine`s government say the men were troops deployed from Russia. The Kremlin is denying these claims.

Yanukovych is wanted for murders of hundreds of protesters in the country. The Ukraine says -- the Kremlin says it will continue to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor. Secretary of State John Kerry made a call for peace on all sides.

And of course on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a surprise military exercise on the border of Ukraine with 150,000 Russian troops. The Russian flag was planted on top of Crimea`s parliament building, militants took control of the government`s building there and pro-Russian demonstrators filled the streets.

Joining me now is Kristen Welker of NBC News, great to have you with us tonight. What can we expect the president to talk about, Kristen?

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS: Well, Ed, I think you`re going to hear stern words from President Obama to give you a sense of what we`ve been hearing from this administration all week. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, National Security Advisor Susan Rice have all said it would be a grave mistake for Russia to intervene in Ukraine.

U.S. officials at this hour confirming that that is essentially what has happened saying that, "Uniformed Russian forces apparently a hybrid of military and paramilitary are still flying into Simferopol . "and that is a region in Crimea and the Ukraine`s U.N. Ambassador telling the U.N Security Council that Russian military forces have taken over their main airports there.

So if this is in fact the case if Russia has in fact invaded -- entered Ukraine this will not only increase tensions in that region, between the east and the west certainly but also continue to freeze the relationship between the United States and Russia. And you know, Ed, one of the things that have been discussed throughout this entire incident and issue in Ukraine is, what is the state of the relationship between the United States and Russia?

U.S. officials have been very adamant that this is not a return to the Cold War and yet when you see something like this happening, if Russia has in fact invaded Ukraine at this point it will undoubtedly just continue to create a larger gulf between the two nations.

So that is the backdrop to the president coming out to the Brady Press Briefing Room. Momentarily, we expect him to come out any minute now. And again, I anticipate that he will have very stern words for Russia. The question is will he draw a red line, if so what will the consequences be? Those are some of the things that I will be listening quite closely for.

And it`s also worth noting, Ed, that the former president of Ukraine as you pointed out, Yanukovych, has left Ukraine and he held a news conference earlier today saying that he has not deposed, he is still the leader of that country, of course many within Ukraine don`t see it that way.

So this situation continues to be volatile there and quite unpredictable and President Obama will come out momentarily and address it all. Ed.

SCHULTZ: And we have -- we were inside the two-minute warning on that, Kristen Welker .

WELKER: OK.

SCHULTZ: . at the White House, stay with us obviously . We want to go to Jim Maceda on the line with us on the phone from Moscow.

Jim, we`re told that the president of the United States and also Vladimir Putin have had words and spoken to one another on the phone. What can you tell us about that?

JIM MACEDA, NBC NEWS, MOSCOW: Well, I don`t have any insight into that phone conversation. I can tell you that having watched this situation unfold here from my purge in Moscow and with my contacts into the Kremlin that we cannot underestimate the reaction of the deep sense of betrayal in fact that President Putin feels at this point. And given the way events eventually unfold that he and his administration, the Kremlin was under the impression that one thing was going to happen that February 21st agreement was going to lead to a series of benchmarks, a timeline that would have taken Yanukovych kept him in power until the end of the year and then suddenly everything was slipped on its year.

Putin found himself outside of the loop as all of these forces, a whole new group of people that Putin mistrusts profoundly, was suddenly calling the shots not from inside key as parliament but from the streets of Kiev. And that .

SCHULTZ: Let`s go now to President Obama at the White House. Thank you, Jim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP

BARACK OBAMA, 44TH AND CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, the United States have been responding the events as they unfold in Ukraine and throughout this crisis we have been very clear about one fundamental principle. The Ukrainian people deserve the opportunity to determine their own future together with our European allies, we have urged an end to the violence and encourage Ukrainians to pursue a course in which they stabilize their country, forge a broad based government and move to elections this spring.

I also spoke several days ago with President Putin and my administration has been in daily communication with Russian officials, and we`ve made clear that they can be part of an international communities effort to support the stability and success of a united Ukraine going forward, which is not only in the interest of the people of Ukraine and the international community but also in Russia`s interest.

However, we are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine. Russia has a historic relationship with Ukraine including cultural and economic ties and a military facility in Crimea.

But any violation of Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing which is not a main interest of Ukraine, Russia or Europe. It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people. It would be a clear violation of Russia`s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty in the borders of Ukraine and of international laws.

And just days after the world came to Russia for the Olympic Games it would invite the condemnation of nations around the world. And indeed, the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.

Now the events of the past several months remind us of how difficult democracy can be in a country with deep divisions. But the Ukraine people have also reminded us that human beings have a universal right to determine their own future.

Right now, this situation remains very fluid. Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister -- the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports its government`s efforts and stands for this sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine.

I also commend that the Ukraine government`s restraint and its commitment to uphold its international obligations and we will continue to coordinate closely with our European allies, we will continue to communicate directly with the Russian government, and we will continue to keep all of you in the press core and the American people informed as events develop.

Thanks very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: President Obama with a brief statement at the White House about the -- what he calls crisis in Ukraine.

Let`s go back to Kristen Welker at the White House. Very clear, deeply concerned and deeply destabilizing. Those were strong words for the Russian president I think, Kristen. How do you see that, Kristen?

WELKER: I think that`s the headline. Yeah, I think that`s absolutely the headline that is sort of the one phrase that was different that we heard from the president. You heard him say that the U.S. is deeply concerned about this situation now warning Russia again not to basically raise the specter of military intervention in Ukraine.

What he didn`t do though was to threaten any action on the part of the United States. He made it very clear that Vice President Biden has been in contact with the prime minister of Ukraine, commended the new government there on the restraint that it has shown. Again, this was a stern warning to Russia, it is what we expected President Obama to say, it was a brief statement, it was to some extent reiteration of what we have heard but again not phrase there, Ed, that you point out deeply concerned is the headline. It is this White House essentially up in the antsy and saying, "We`re watching what you`re doing and we`re not going to just standby."

SCHULTZ: We can only speculate if the president is concerned about sovereignty and their military actions by the Russian federation inside the Ukraine. We can only speculate what kind of conversation the president and Mr. Putin had about that

And you profoundly point out, Kristen, that there were no words of any kind of military action whatsoever but the question begs, what will it take for the United States to possibly get involve? And does the Russian Federation and these troops have to back off? I mean it`s very interesting the president didn`t take any questions because certainly he didn`t want to inflame the .

WELKER: Right.

SCHULTZ: . situation. This is a very, very tense diplomatic situation at this point. That`s -- and deeply destabilizing I think is really a code that, "Mr. Putin, you better back off here." How else could we take that, Kristen, your thoughts on that?

WELKER: I think that`s absolutely right and what you`re going to see over the next 24 hours, Ed, flurry of conversations certainly between the White House, this administration and Russian officials. And it is such a fragile situation because if this does escalate into some type of actual violence. That is certainly going to change the equation. It`s going to change the equation for the administration, for the folks on the ground in Ukraine and obviously for Russia.

So it is going to be a tense weekend here at the White House undoubtedly as they continue to monitor this situation and in those phone calls that they will have, they`re going to reiterate what you heard the president say. And to your point, Ed, probably make the point that the United States will take some type of action, I don`t know that it would be military action, but some type of action if this situation in Ukraine currently turns violent. Ed.

SCHULTZ: And of course will get a reaction sometime this evening from Capitol Hill. I`m sure.

WELKER: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: Kristen Welker at the White House. Thank you for joining us on the Ed Show tonight and that coverage.

You`re watching the Ed Show. We`ll be right back here on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

I`m sure you`ve had conversations with your friends in the past and you get tired of hearing the story and you say, "You know, get of it. Get over it." That`s kind of what I feel about this story is all about. But Senator Corker if you want to keep bringing it up, I`m willing to play along.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker is whining about the United Auto Workers. They are the villain all of a sudden. The guy who won by cheating and he still isn`t happy.

Here`s what Corker told reporters about the UAW on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: My knowledge of the UAW came into play and let me say this, I think my involvement from their perspective getting back to your base question, you know, I probably am public enemy number one to the UAW.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: No, the key word is not "enemy". The key word "involvement". You`re involvement, Senator. Make no mistake.

Corker should be public enemy number one for the Unions because he`s writing the book on how to defeat them. The guy intimidated workers at the Chattanooga Volkswagen Plant, he made threats about more production not being in Chattanooga if the vote didn`t go the right way, and if they voted in the Union.

In the end, Corker`s misinformation campaign, well I guess you could say it paid off. Workers voted against unionization and their own self interest.

Now, here are just a few examples, so we don`t have history revisionism going on here. Here`s a few examples of Corker`s intimidation tactics leading up to the vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: The officers a month ago, talking about fighting and combat and all of those kind of things. If that`s the environment you want UAW is certainly is the people for you -- are the people to choose. They can help with the wages. You got a facility that is the most advanced, environmentally sound facility in the world right here in Chattanooga, Tennessee. So what`s this about? It`s about one thing. Its money and it`s about power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Now in the arena of public opinion, do you think most common sense folks would say, "That`s involvement, that`s real involvement in an election." And now overall, Corker flat out lied about the United Auto Workers Union.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: We support the works council notion that they`re trying to implement. We just had concerns about the UAW, we know of their track record. We know what`s happened in communities where they`ve been located. We know they have been a job destroying entity through the years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: No, no, no. Corker is lying when he makes comments like that about the UAW. UAW had saved thousands of jobs all over the country and they have the numbers to back it up.

Let me be clear folks, Corker`s intimidation of plant workers was absolutely unprecedented. Never in American history as a sitting United States senator inject himself and launched into an intimidation campaign against unionization.

I mean it`s so bad the UAW hasn`t done this before in recent history. They have filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB will review the matter and review the matter again and again and likely hold hearings in a few months.

Really? A few months? I`ll get back to that in just a moment.

The hearing could spark a revote at the Chattanooga plant.

Now, Senator Corker isn`t happy about all of this. He thinks the NLRB is stepping on his first amendment rights. Here what he had to say on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: I hope that the National Labor Relations Board will understand and realize the magnitude of what they`re going to be deciding and in no way will try to muscle public officials who are community leaders from expressing her point of views.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Senator, give me a break. A point of view versus threats and intimidation? Corker wasn`t expressing his point of view. Corker was misleading workers and making threats. This guy, he`s got to be ashamed of himself, but I don`t think he`s capable of that.

Two weeks ago, this is what the senator from Tennessee said. "I`ve had conversations today," he said. "Based on those am assured that should the workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce . " will announce, key phrase there. ". will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new mid-size SUV here in Chattanooga." The senator was very clear.

Corker said he was assured if workers voted against the UAW, Volkswagen would announce new production. Well on Thursday, Corker changed his tune.

Here`s what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: The UAW had been spreading rumors that the only way a new SUV line was going to come to the plant and double its size, the only way that was going to happen was if the plant was organized by the UAW.

Obviously, that was having an effect on people who work there. And so on Wednesday night during the course of a three day election after a thousand votes of 1,300 had been cast. I made the statement that I was assured that even if the UAW did not win that Chattanooga was still its first choice.

And let me say this, I talked all up and down the chain and talked to site selectors often. I believe and, you know, I know that Chattanooga is the first choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: It seems to me like the senator is trying to lessen the impact that he had on the vote.

Corker`s original statement implied Volkswagen would announce new production if the union was voted down. Now, Corker is saying Volkswagen would have brought new production no matter what the outcome.

Look, his word sniffing, he`s playing a word game right now with the media, he`s not an honest broker and that`s what I`ve said all along.

Let`s keep it focused here. This senator has injected himself into a vote and now the National Labor Relations Board has got a decision to make.

And now for them, why months? This is a pending issue. I think the NLRB gives government a bad name by not moving quickly on this. It`s easy to research, let`s knock off the lunches and get to work boys. The bottom line here is this ought to be able be done in 30 days. This is affecting workers, this is hurting families by not allowing them to better themselves in the workplace. So what`s the hold up?

I certainly hope that the NLRB isn`t going to be intimidated by the senator from Tennessee who now seems to be pretty foggy about the facts when it comes to what he said, when he said it, and what kind of impact he had.

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think tonight`s question. "Should a United States senator brag about hurting his own constituents?" Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622, you can always go to our blog @ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

For more, I want to bring in the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan Virg Bernero and also with us tonight is Professor Harley Shaiken who is a professor at UC Berkeley specializing in labor issues.

Professor, you first, have you ever seen an elected official inject himself into a process the ways Senator Corker did and the governor and some legislators?

HARLEY SHAIKEN, UC BERKELEY PROFESSOR: You know, I`ve never seen this. Certainly at this scale, it`s truly unprecedented, it`s almost as if Senator Corker were channeling 19th Century Robber Barons who had a tendency to say, "Vote my way on Tuesday or don`t come to work on Wednesday."

What he said in the guys of an anonymous conversation was an absolutely an economic threat that is if you vote against the union you will get within weeks a new model that`s vital for the plant. He has claimed at the time that this was his free speech.

But Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes and a unanimous court decided this in 1919. Justice Holmes said, falsely shouting fire is not protected by free speech.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SHAIKEN: This was a statement that was at variance with what everything that Volkswagen had said publicly and privately which is the vote would have no bearing on where their product went. And he put it in the guys - an unanimous comment, was it a night shift security guard or the CEO of Volkswagen who said this.

SCHULTZ: And he never identified .

SHAIKEN: I think it`s inappropriate and irresponsible.

SCHULTZ: He never identified who told him, who gave him the assurance that if the vote went a certain way that there would extended manufacturing at that plant.

Virg Bernero, it sure seems to me like the Senator from Tennessee is a little foggy on how these all unfolded, how do you see it?

MAYOR VIRG BERNERO, (D) LANSING, MICHIGAN: Well, look, it was underhanded, it was despicable and I`ll go so far, Ed, as to say, it was un-American. Because it is a basic tenant in American law now, and an American principle that you -- the worker gets to chose, it wasn`t always that way as the Professor said. These were hard fought rights that labor fought in this country. You know, sometimes we forget our history at our own peril but people fought and suffered bloods, toil sweat and tears to win the rights that we have as Americans to decide if we want a union.

And of course especially in this economy today with the growth of the multinationals and the growth of the separation between the rich and the poor, the unions helped to create the middle class in this country, and it really help move people out of poverty, and give them real opportunity and fulfill the American dream. And that`s why I can say it`s un-American .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BERNERO: . it violates the spirit and the letter of labor law. But also it goes against the American dreams.

SCHULTZ: I mean it`s very clear that Corker is still working the story. Corker is working the story, he`s trying to shake down the NLRB, this is another form of intimidation trying to reverse the -- a hex around about how this all unfolded.

BERNERO: This is an attack. This is an assault and it`s really a war on labor and they will stop at nothing. Guys like Corker will stop at nothing. He says he`s public enemy number one at the UAW. He`s public enemy number one of working people. He`s public enemy number one of the middle class. The middle class is under attack. It`s shrinking and the outfit that can stop that is unions.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BERNERO: Unions created the middle class and there was going to bring the middle class back he knows that he ain`t on the side of right. He ain`t on the side of justice that`s for sure.

SCHULTZ: Professor, is it the culture of the NLRB to move at the speed of molasses?

SHAIKEN: Unfortunately, at times this is the case but I think you`re making an excellent point. This needs a very prompt resolution. The evidence is overwhelming and clear.

And I`d also like to say I think the Mayor had an excellent point. This is not solely a labor story, certainly not a UAW story. It`s a story about fundamental democratic rights in any democratic society. The right to have a union or not should be left to the workers without interference.

SCHULTZ: I can only believe that the senator might be a little bit concerned about the NLRB but I find the discovery in this should be a lot easier than in other situations because there`s been some immediate comments about it done by the senator himself. It would seem to me that the NLRB would be able to move in a much speedier pace than molasses in Minnesota.

Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. Virg Bernero and also Professor Harley Shaiken, thank you so much.

Coming up .

BERNERO: Thanks, Ed.

SHAIKEN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: . the next big Progressive political star Sandra Fluke in studio with me tonight.

And later, our exclusive interview with Canada`s ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer, joins us live and talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Canadian interest and how the United States would benefit from it.

We`ll continue our series Divided Heartland: The American Debate. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders. In social media this is where you can find us at facebook.com/edshow, twitter.com/edshow, and ed.msnbc.com. And of course, you can find us on the radio Monday through Friday, SiriusXM, Channel 127. You can get my podcast off the website at wegoted.com.

Now, two years ago, there was no bigger trender than this comment from Rush Limbaugh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW" HOST: What does it say that a college coed Susan Fluke that goes before Congressional Committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right, makes her a prostitute.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Limbaugh`s viral comment targeted to then Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke. It was a landmark moment in the ongoing Republican war on women. It changed the landscape in talk tadio as advertisers ran from Limbaugh`s hate speech and the whole genre itself.

It also puts Sandra Fluke on the map as a women`s activist across America. Now, two years after Republicans tried to silence her from speaking out on women`s issues, health issues, Sandra Fluke wants her voice to be heard in the California State House and she joins us tonight here on the Ed Show.

Sandra, thanks for your time.

SANDRA FLUKE, CANDIDATE FOR STATE SEN.: Thanks for having me.

SCHULTZ: You have been cast on the scene, politically in this country. You`ve done a lot of activist work, where do you go from here running for this position?

FLUKE: Well, I`m running for the State Senate because I want to give a voice to my constituents. I want to be able to stand up for their concerns around the environment. It`s a very important issue in our coastal district and we have frucking (ph) concerns happening there. I want to make sure that we`re fighting for the kind of good jobs that you`re always talking about that you and I are both working on to ensure that -- especially my millennial generation has a future in the middle class and it`s not struck down my student loan debt and the unaffordability of higher education. And of course, we`re working on implementing the Affordable Care Act and making sure that we do that in a way that makes healthcare affordable for everyone.

SCHULTZ: Did Limbaugh change your life with that comment?

FLUKE: Well, he certainly changed some aspects of it and you know, the way I look at it is it`s a microphone to talk to about issues that have always been important to me and that`s what I continue to do, to continue to talk about how we need to fight human trafficking and a special issue in California that we need to prevent domestic violence, that it`s important that we stand up for living wage ordinances.

SCHULTZ: You are not allowed to testify in front of Darrell Issa`s committee. Have we made any progress in this country on women`s issue since then? That`s had been a long two years and of course the Republicans deny that there`s any kind of agenda against women.

FLUKE: Well, I think that everyone needs to be very clear that the 2012 elections did not end the attacks on women`s reproductive rights, and other aspects of gender equality, and in fact many of those attacks are happening in state legislatures across the country. So, while we spend a lot of time focusing on Congress where there are clearly very problematic bills being introduced, we also need to be looking to our state legislatures where there`s terrible damage being done to women`s rights, to gay rights, to a whole host of social justice issues. But on the other hand, there`s possibilities in legislatures like California to advance these heights to move the country forward and that`s what I`m committed to do in the State Senate.

SCHULTZ: When you look at pay in the workplace, OK, for equal pay, what`s going to turn that around? What has to happen? Can it be done on the state level?

FLUKE: I believe so. There is a lot that we could do legislatively on that issue. On the federal level, we haven`t seen progress in decades.

SCHULTZ: No movement at all. Yeah.

FLUKE: . as in decades since we updated legislation there and you can tell that there are differences because different states have different levels. But even in California, we have a long way to go on fair pay. Something else I`d like to work on.

SCHULTZ: Can you win?

FLUKE: Absolutely. We`ve got an incredible reaction since launching the campaign. We of course need everyone`s support because this is a race in which I`m not the favorite insider political candidate who`s endorsed by a big business in special interest. So, I hope that everyone who stood with me in 2012 will go to standwithsandra.org and stand with me now.

SCHULTZ: Well, do you think you`re somewhat of a political target now because you`ve been on the national platform, the country knows who you are, you`re not sure average candidate in a state representative position and it would seem to me that there are people working against, you know, what you advocate for and might want to silence your voice again.

FLUKE: You know, I`m comfortable on fighting the folks who want to make on personally. What`s important to me is that I`m accomplishing what my constituents need and if nobody`s pushing back on that, then you`re not really fighting for anything. So, I`m pretty comfortable with the idea that I`m getting resistance. It means I`m creating change.

SCHULTZ: Your number one issue.

FLUKE: My number one issue is always going to be the equality and prosperity that my constituents need.

Bad weather is blamed in part for the U.S. economy slow growth rate in the fourth quarter. GDP grew at a 2.4 percent rate down from 4.1 percent in the third quarter.

Pending home sales were relatively flat in January edging up 0.1 percent. Consumer`s sentiment rose slightly this month coming in just roll back expectations.

That`s it from CNBC. We`re first in business worldwide.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. For weeks, we`ve been bringing you both sides of the story of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Landowners and farmers have expressed serious concerns about the pipeline. They don`t want the pipeline running through their land. On the other side of the oil companies and of course in some politicians, want this project to happen.

Now, the Canadian government has been very clear. They think the XL Pipeline will be good for both the United States and the Canadian economy. Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made this very clear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN HARPER, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: President Obama and I had an exchange on this. My views in favor of the project are very well known. His views on the process are also equally well known. And we had that discussion.

On the issue of climate change, which is a shared concern, Canada and the United States have similar targets at the international level. We already cooperate in several sectors in terms of emissions reductions. But in terms of climate change, I think the State Department report already was pretty definitive on that particular issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight is the Canadian Ambassador to the United States Gary Doer. Mr. Ambassador, great to have you with us tonight.

AMB. GARY DOER, CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Well thank you very much Ed and.

SCHULTZ: Thank you so much.

DOER: . thanks for having on.

SCHULTZ: You bet. I`ve heard a lot both sides on this issue. Let`s talk about the Canadian perspective. Does Canada want this pipeline to come through to the United States to go down to be refined in the Gulf?

DOER: Yes we do. We think it makes a lot of sense for both countries, as you say. It was proposed about five years ago to displace Venezuelan oil. We have a great trading relationship with the United States including in energy. And we think it makes a lot of sense to have this pipeline proceed. But not only proceed with Canadian oil, but also proceed with Bakken oil from North Dakota and Montana.

Now, the oil is coming down to United States now. And as the State Department has properly documented, it`s coming down on rail, and you and I both know Highway 2 in North Dakota. 500 tanker trucks a day with oil and we think it makes more sense to be on a pipeline.

SCHULTZ: So, tar sands oil, to be very clear, is already being refined in the Gulf?

DOER: Yes it is.

SCHULTZ: OK. And this would just bring more but to market?

DOER: Well not -- it would bring more, but it would bring in with a pipeline -- and the State Department, you have people, as you say, on either side of this issue.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

DOER: But if we look at the independent meritorious review of the State Department in the 2000 pages, they say it`s safer, it`s less costs, and it has less greenhouse gases to have it on a pipeline rather than rail and trucks. And as I say, you and I both know, Highway 2 in North Dakota.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

DOER: You know, 500 trucks a day, that`s why you`ve got a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator saying put it on a pipeline.

SCHULTZ: OK. Yeah. Rail, obviously, is really being loaded up with oil right now and the safety issue is what the proponents are really saying about this pipeline. But the quality of oil, we keep hearing that this is the worst oil to ever come out of the ground that is far more toxic than other oil that is already on the market. Is that true?

DOER: Well, the State Department report again says the oil is comparable to the oil it`s displacing in Venezuela. Secondly, if you look at the Department of Energy report, ironically, the highest greenhouse gas emission oil in North America is actually thermal oil from California. Of course, we don`t mean to say that we can`t and must continue to improve the stewardship of that oil. And we use to use 10 barrels of water for one barrel of oil. Now, we`re down to one to one. We`re continuing to have the land reclamation in the area. We rather continue to reduce greenhouse gases through innovation and we will do that and we are doing that.

SCHULTZ: OK. Why not refine it in Canada? A lot of those questions.

DOER: Some of the oil is refined in Canada. But it`s displaced in -- the purpose of this pipeline is to displace Venezuelan oil to make United States less reliable or less reliant rather on Middle Eastern oil. So that was the purpose of the pipeline to begin with. And when you look at those goal posts, they`ve been -- the balls gone through those goal posts then there was the issue of the Sandhill portion in Nebraska.

That pipeline has now being rerouted to deal with that concern that has been raised in the State of Nebraska. And now, the President saying it has to be -- it can`t increase greenhouse gases in any significant way. While the State Department also answers that question, it says that it would be higher greenhouse gases if you were going to say no to the pipeline.

SCHULTZ: Now, there`s been some questions by environmentalists about the integrity of the State Department.

DOER: Yeah, I think that`s really unfair and I`m not the Secretary of State.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DOER: But this is the second time they`ve questioned the integrity of the scientists and the experts in the State Department that are not political appointments.

SCHULTZ: What is it that.

DOER: And I respect their integrity.

SCHULTZ: OK.

DOER: You know, we may not have like the State Department report, but we would never -- and we do think it`s a good report by the way. We think it`s very accurate. But we would never attack the integrity of those scientists and (inaudible) reports.

SCHULTZ: They`re saying that environmentalists are saying it`s been a conflict of interest and the.

DOER: Well, they.

SCHULTZ: . inspector general says not.

DOER: It`s not like a house (ph) of courage by an independent review of the inspector.

SCHULTZ: OK

DOER: . general. And I think, at some point, when you make these allegations and when you`re accountable for -- when you`re wrong.

SCHULTZ: You really want this pipeline?

DOER: No, but I also think that.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DOER: . I think it`s been very unfair to people that can`t speak of.

SCHULTZ: OK.

DOER: And again, I`m not the Secretary of State.

SCHULTZ: Sure, sure. OK. Now, Secretary Kerry gave a speech.

DOER: Yes.

SCHULTZ: It was very pointed about the climate change and global warming, called it the weapon of mass destruction. Is he, your sense, not going to recommend that this pipe be built?

DOER: Well, why would you say no to a pipeline and have higher greenhouse gasses with rail. I agree that -- I don`t agree with some of everything -- necessarily the flare in which you`ve said it.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

DOER: But, I think -- and the prime minister and the president both talked about it last week. We have the ability to have energy security in our neighborhood, of Canada, United States, and Mexico. Look at all the -- you`ve heard Brian Schweitzer talked before.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DOER: Governor Schweitzer talked about how many people went from his national guard over to the Middle East. We have the chance to have that, but we also are -- have the chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in North America and we`re going to continue to do that. We don`t see and I didn`t see when I was premier in Manitoba, a pipeline as climate change. I saw closing a coal plant potentially is being helpful or I saw light vehicle emission standards which the president and the prime minister have agreed too. We both have the same energy efficiency for cars -- that is climate change.

SCHULTZ: All right. Tell us what happens if the pipeline is not built. What happens to that oil? I keep -- I`m always hearing that these oils coming out of the ground. The Canadians already get this out to the ground.

DOER: Yeah. And we.

SCHULTZ: It`s already coming out, but it`s going to come out a faster phase. Why not put it to the West Coast?

DOER: Well, there are also pipeline in the West Coast. There`s a proposal for two more. So, yes it can.

SCHULTZ: With this pipeline the Keystone?

DOER: No, no, not with this but, there are two proposed pipelines.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DOER: . to United States. There`s two to the West Coast proposed and two to the East Coast. And.

SCHULTZ: Are the Canadian people fighting the one to the West Coast?

(INAUDIBLE)

DOER: If you have a transmission line.

SCHULTZ: Yeah

DOER: . if you have a pipeline. If you have a pipeline with carbon dioxide from North Dakota to be.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DOER: . to be sequestered in Saskatchewan, I guarantee you, you will have people that disagree with it. And we can`t sometimes get clean energy.

SCHULTZ: OK.

DOER: . on a transmission line.

SCHULTZ: Will it be refined better in the Gulf that it would be in China?

DOER: Well, there`s higher standards in United States than China.

SCHULTZ: OK. And what if the president says no to this? What does this do to diplomatic relations with Canada? Does it really.

DOER: Well, first of all, if the president says no, he`s saying yes to higher greenhouse gasses, because the oil is coming down, whether anybody likes it or not, on rail that does not require his presidential permit. So, the choice for John Kerry and to the president is do you want the oil coming through United States and through Canada.

SCHULTZ: OK

DOER: . on rail or do you want it on pipelines?

SCHULTZ: I have to ask you.

DOER: Lower cost, lower risk, and lower GHG`s on pipelines.

SCHULTZ: All right.

DOER: Other than that it`s not that complicated.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mr. Ambassador, I got to ask you about the situation in Ukraine. Your thoughts on that -- in the aggressive move by the Russians -- the Russian Federation holding military operations inside Ukraine.

DOER: Well, our Administrative Foreign Affairs is there as you`re asking me the question. We feel that we have to demonstrate solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people, the disappointments that they`ve had over the last number of weeks and months. And that`s why our foreign minister has been deployed and is there as we speak.

SCHULTZ: The President says his deeply concerned.

DOER: We are too. Yes, we share his concerns.

SCHULTZ: And are you concerned about possible military action by the Russians?

DOER: The President been used that term and we`re trying to work very carefully with United States. With all weekend long, we are working in consort with United States. We`re working together with the administration in Washington.

SCHULTZ: All right. Gary Doer, great to have you with us tonight. Canadian Ambassador to the United States.

We`ll have more coming up here on the Ed Show stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Coming up, we continue our series Divided Heartland: The American Debate. Tonight, we explore the changing landscape of politics on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us tonight.

The Keystone XL Pipeline debate crosses all party lines and cuts to the core of American values. The fight is forever changing politics in a different state in the middle of the country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM TARNICK, KEYSTONE XL OPPONENT: It`s time to step up and say "no."

SCHULTZ: This fight for land and rights has forged new alliances on the political horizon in Nebraska.

TARNICK: I used to think elect -- whoever you elect in an office, you know, they were working for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For you.

TARNICK: For the guy that got them in.

SCHULTZ: That`s not the way it`s happening?

TARNICK: Right. (Inaudible) definitely.

JANE KLEEB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOLD NEBRASKA: That`s why it`s been so successful. We really have been kind of teaching each other along the way.

WIZIPAN LITTLE ELK, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE: We`re, you know, very thankful and appreciative of the support and the efforts that our friends, you know, Indian and non-Indian throughout the country have -- are showing.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

From ranchers to farmers, to Native Americans, this is an alliance of cultures never seen before on the political landscape.

LITTLE ELK: We`re very pleased with our brothers and sisters in Nebraska in their recent went.

KLEEB: As Americans, we now have to translate this power that we`ve developed as citizens to electoral power. That`s going to be a challenge that we`re facing in 2014 as well as 2015. Because we have the energy and we have the power amongst us. And now, we have to essentially say look, these folks who said that they`re representing us who said also it`s a good things, never were here for us and we`ve got to elect new people who are actually going to have our backs.

SHANNON CRAVES, KEYSTONE XL OPPONENT: We`re going to have a bigger impact on the upcoming elections.

SCHULTZ: Some feel this entire Keystone XL Pipeline issue is going to change Nebraska`s political future.

KLEEB: There is no question on my mind.

CRAVES: I am a registered Republican that`s going to vote for a Democratic senator. How`s that for you?

KLEEB: Anybody that thinks this is a flash in the pan or a small minority of people has not been paying attention.

RANDY THOMPSON, SUED TO STOP PIPELINE IN NE: Yeah, I must tell you, Ed, I`m actually a Republican. I have then for 41 years, 42 years registered Republican. And I`m extremely disappointed in that, you know, it`s just -- and I`m sure there are Democrats same way, but this appears to me the Republican Party has, you know, they just become the political wing for corporate America.

CRAVES: And we`re all brought together as an alliance. An alliance, by its definition, is a group of people working for a common goal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: And next week on the Ed Show, will the pipeline be built if it`s built with American Steel? I`ll be in Pittsburgh tomorrow working on that story.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>